Yes, non-profits can make a 'profit' it just can't distribute them to members / shareholders.

Thats called self-dealing and it is illegal. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but its like Step 1 IRS agents look for when you're getting audited. Defending against "self-dealing" charges are so common that I know directors of non-profits who refuse to even do things like buy themselves a burger for lunch when travelling for work because defending against the claims of self dealing just aren't worth it.

The NFL is a not-for-profit business. Non-profits are businesses. Its a tax classification. That's all it is. The non-profit part really only applies to the owners being able to take capital out of the business. In a for-profit the owners can do that. Nothing wrong with it but you can't do that as a non-profit. You can pay yourself a reasonable salary based on the standards agreed on by the state.

Some for-profits do more good than non-profits. Our culture has a real problem with accepting capitalism as an amoral good for human kind. And I'm not talking about corporatism/fascism we see play out in the US where corporations use political power to rig the system. I'm talking about free markets. The idea that owners of companies can make a profit by providing a service where people voluntarily trade their money for goods or services. The idea that this is somehow bad is a poison we should expel from our culture.

All that said, I know several people that run not for profits and don't do well for themselves. Its not a grift. Its just something that is hard to make into a profitable business so they accept donations that are tax deductible. They can buy goods for their work at prices not possible if they were a for profit.

As with most things this whole scheme only exists because of the state and its theft of capital out of the free market. I have no problem with people using the tax code to avoid theft. That is why these rules are written. The connected people get them added. Its dumb to not use the code that is written to your benefit and the benefit of others. Provided you aren't using force or coercion.

I heard someone joke once that the only difference with non-profits is that they use the word “margin” to describe their profits.

This is just another version of Hollywood accounting. They pay actors with profit sharing incentives, but really they make the films super costly so they barely pay the actors more than they agreed. Where did all the costs come from to produce the film and make them 'unprofitable', from all the contractors, lighting, fx, etc. those are companies that the studios also own. Meaning the movie is unprofitable, but the profits appear in all the subsidiary's and mean they limit the amount given back to the creatives in bonuses.

In my younger years, I did non-profit youth work at a youth club in my town. It was operated by the church, but finances were handled like a business.

There was one full-time employee, and everything was payed with charity or membership fees (not mandatory for poor families).

In the end, they tried to charge as minimal money as possible and had to close. This was a huge downfall for many kids that came from a toxic household and families.

So maybe, sometimes non-profit organizations should behave more like profit-organizations to keep everything alive for the people that need it.

Accounting 'profit' isn’t distributed, while salaries are paid — and very well paid. NGOs are perfect fronts to receive money from state corruption.

Since the Nonprofit Orgs. pay no taxes, what then is contained in their expenditure account?

Yeah, “nonprofit” doesn’t mean “no money”… it just means the profit gets routed differently. The tax man just gets left out of the party.